Atheism is sound

Atheism is a sound philosophy because not believing in a God is ok and there is no specific proof towards a god. Agnostic atheism is exceptionally sound because instead of saying there definetly is no god, it considers the possibility, because there is a possibility of a God. Also, atheism does not mean communism. Get a clue.

I am a Believer and I believe it is a sound Philosophy

Philosophy by its very definition is a study of the fundamental knowledge of knowledge, reality, and existence, esp. When considered as an academic discipline. It does mean it is an objective stance or believe. Therefore, when we claim Atheism as a sound philosophy we should view it as having its own merit to be brought to the table to STUDY. We may not believe it to be the sound stance to take on the issue of the existence of a deity, but it has it's own merit as a philosophy.

There are no legitimate reasons for a person to think atheism isn't a sound philosophy.

The enormous majority of responses to this argument are bigoted. "The theory of evolution is just that: a theory. There isn't any sound evidence to support it and, in fact, the fossil records actually support the Biblical account of how things were created. Atheism appeals to people because they don't want to be held accountable for their actions." This is ridiculously condescending and seems to immediately scream the idea that all atheists must be strange, evil people that want to kill and rape all of the people in the world simply because they don't have childish fear of an "omnipotent" being watching their every move. Fear of punishment from an illogical idea doesn't immediately mean a lack of morality. In fact, if this fear of punishment is all that the religious have as an argument, it seems to hint that they believe if they weren't to be punished for their bad deeds, they would be committing them, which is ludicrous. They seem to have this extremely warped view that makes them think an atheist is some how a completely different human compared to the religious, that without guidelines from a holy book, no human can be empathetic or kind, which is frankly disturbing.

Unlike religious faith, atheism tends to depend on physical evidence more than a "strong faith" or what they claim is "knowing" that they feel the love of God in their heart. People are free to believe whatever they like, I fully support that, but to claim that Christianity, Muslim, etc. have just as much evidence, just as much validity as logical scientific thinking (which consists mostly of atheism, though as I stated, does not HAVE to be associated with an atheist) is a lie. Faith is belief in something without evidence, and, in view of scientific progress, sometimes belief in something DESPITE evidence of the contrary.

The evidence of evolution is absolutely overwhelming. Evolution is about more than just organisms, it can refer to society itself, adapting to new inventions, new ideas, etc. Our opinions of things evolve over time through new information, through different reasoning being steadily supported and disproved as time goes on. Organisms adapting to changes in their environment isn't just blatantly obvious, it's completely logical. The extremely ironic point of all this is that the religious person who posted this ignorantly assumes that an atheist HAS to believe in evolution, that an atheist can't be an atheist without also thinking scientifically, which is not the case, that atheism=evolution. An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in a God or Gods, nothing more. Obviously many atheists do think scientifically/logically, but it is not a requirement of atheism.

Finally a repeated argument that keeps popping up on this page is that the largest example of the negative effects of atheism is communism. An argument this ignorant is enough to make an atheists head explode. Unlike the crusades of old in the dark ages that were specifically in the name of that religion, communist atheism was NOT in the name of atheism, but communism.

I believe atheism is a sound philosophy, because there are many religions with their own pros and cons, but atheism is more objective and can answer life's questions, based on scientific fact.

There is nothing wrong the the religions of the worlds, and people are allowed to follow them as they wish, so long as no one gets hurt. However, atheism makes for a sound philosophy, because it is more objective. It encourages scientific answers, rather than faith. Wars have been raged, and people murdered, over religious beliefs. In some cases, atheism is more peaceful. While some religions are behind the times, atheism has no such restrictions or prejudices. There is no question of which god is more true or what counts as a sin in atheism. Atheism is also a more broad moral code. For example, while many branches of Christianity condemn same-sex couples, atheism has no restrictions, because many atheists support gay rights.

With so many different conflicting faiths out there, and with no proof that any of their gods exist, I think that atheism is a sound philosophy.

There are a number of conflicting philosophies and religions in the world, and none of them offer factual proof of their gods or of concepts, like the soul or heaven. So, I think it is understandable that some people are atheists.

Yes, because atheism is our modern religion.

The bible is so outdated. Scripture is nothing but stories told by those that have no relevance in what we are today. We are living in a world were we are free to believe anything we want, without consequences. Being a good citizen is just as genuine as being a good Christian. If I am not praying to a god, but give to charities, I am still doing the right things.

Atheism is a sound philosophy in the modern world, because it's illogical to think otherwise.

When considering the alternative, it would be illogical for someone to write off atheism as an unsound philosophy. Scientifically speaking, it is more than reasonable to assume that the universe was not created by a supreme being. Atheism actually presents more scientific evidence than any religious philosophy, as it does not require "faith" in order to combat common sense.

As long as there is religion, there will be atheism.

Both religion and atheism are beliefs, and therefore a matter of opinion. Being an Atheist doesn't make you any less moral than a die-hard churchgoer and being a die-hard churchgoer doesn't make you morally supreme over an Atheist. In my opinion; if Atheism is not considered a sound philosophy, then Christianity shouldn't be considered one either. We all have a right to believe, and we all have a right not to believe.

Atheism is the best philosophy for the modern world because it would eliminate the majority of the conflicts we face.

Religion is the world's number one cause of conflict, war and terrorism. Man, when religion is involved, tends to make many decisions based on unjustified belief. This includes killing others simply for not maintaining the same unjustified beliefs. Religion was a tool for entitled men of the past, and must be abolished for the world to prosper and become one, at the highest levels possible.

Modern societies opinion has no relevance regarding the existence of God so atheism has no validity just because modern society says it is sound.

The only reputable source for information regarding the existence of God is the Bible. Human opinion is not a reliable source of information regarding the existence of God. Polytheism, atheism, and varying theories regarding the eternal state of man are not new philosophies they have existed throughout history. The fact that a human being decides there is not God does not cause God to cease to exist. The only competent source of information about God is the Bible. And the Bible answers the question, Genesis 1:1, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The beginning of everything is God.

Without heavenly limits, we get hell on Earth

What world leaders massacred the most people in the 20th century? Chinese communists, who were atheists, killed between 20 and 40 million of their own people in the Great Leap Forward. Stalin's purges killed 10 and 20 million people, depending on whether starvation victims in Ukraine and German war prisoners worked to death are counted. Pol Pot, another atheist Communist, killed 1/4 of all Cambodians, considering that a fair loss for a "perfect" society. Many of the most rabid "pro-choice" are pro-abortion to the point of allowing newborns to be killed if the mother does not want it, with the result of almost 20% of all pregnancies resulting in abortion. This is not a religious stance, but an atheist one. It would be more humane for widespread distribution of long term contraceptive like Norplant or to offer free sterilization. However, Planned Parenthood, an organization openly hostile to religion, prefers to give unreliable condoms and birth control pills to teenagers who cannot get a broken bone set in the ER and then lets them come back for an abortion later. Given the modern death toll of atheism, the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were minor. They were also over centuries ago. Atheist and communist North Korea lets millions of its citizens starve to death today. Christian America sends aid to Haiti overnight. Muslim Saudi Arabia sends its condolences. America takes in thousands of Haitian orphans within 10 days of the earthquake. Communist China does nothing. Who would you rather have in charge? Those that believe you have a right to life and help, or those whose impossible dream of perfection on Earth may require your death.

Atheism as a rejection of a natural sentiment of life

When a child is born, and they being free from the responsibilities of adult life, are perceptive of how the world is much bigger than them, and a governing force over them, they may perceive the Universe itself, as being a sacred place. A place which somehow wishes for them to be treated kindly and not abandoned/abused. That the actual spiritual universe isn't an innert place, basically. But that, on account of being born human, they have a meaning to the Universe, and the universe has a deep and profound meaning to them. If these emotions arise naturally, why adopt a philosophy of atheism? If it feels as though walking into the sun-shine feels cosmically ordained, why work against that? Modernity: medicine, cars/trains/planes and central heating don't inherently diminish the sense that the Universe is cosmic. Although it is true that modern conveniences do remove some of the mystery of human life, and how death is inseparable from life, and also the course of being alive. Before central heating, a person might have reflected "I feel cold but I feel inherently grateful to be here" or "I feel cold and I feel angry against the universe for that".

Atheism isn't a philosophy, it is a positional statement

First and foremost, I am an atheist: this question is entirely wrong. Atheism is the position that deities don't exits, while theism states at least one does. It really should be naturalism v supernaturalism as a theist is proportions the existence of something beyond the natural world, but I digress. Atheism is not a philosophy, only you decide how you live in any world, there is no right or wrong, just success or failure. If that includes 'belief' then so be it. Many beliefs are successful, but that does not make them right. That being said, atheism is more than probably true but it is extremely hard to use a negative position as the basis, you need to design you own philosophy to live by. Your philosophy will prove itself in the end.

In relation to the other 'no' arguments: evolution is just living success, the Catholic Church is successful as it forbids sex before marriage contraception and marriage outside the church; meaning, more children whom are likely to be raised under catholism, leading it to be one of the largest religions. This is behavioural evolution much like physical or functional. Successful living strategies promote long-term existence. Secondly, on agnotiscim, shall we just presume there is an Invisible Pink Unicorn or an invisible teacup situated between Earth and Mars? Fence siting is not a valid position, especially with a null-proposition, it is especially hard to prove a negative position the burden of proof is on the positive - like the presumption of innocence (I bet you enjoy that form of 'atheism'), you must prove someone guilty. Thus, it is reasonable to hold atheism until superior evidence is shown - which is hasn't for any particular belief. A leap of faith is like assuming one to be guilty and asking one to prove their innocence. God wrote the bible which says God exists so God must exist... nice one, any non-bible sources pertaining the existence of God. And if regular people wrote the bible: then why don't you believe Harry Potter? Finally, those atrocities were committed in the name of political ideals not in the existence or lackthereof a God. That doesn't mean people haven't killed in the name of atheism - some probably have, people kill over all sorts of things. However, it is a bit rich for a religious person to start pointing fingers. Witch trials, the crusades, Saladin's campaign, Joan of Arc on both sides of the war (Joan was told by God to fight the British), many of the current conflicts in Africa, fights between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims and many many more.

No, atheism is not a sound philosophy in the modern world, because the more we know about science the more it supports creation.

The theory of evolution is just that: a theory. There isn't any sound evidence to support it and, in fact, the fossil records actually support the Biblical account of how things were created. Atheism appeals to people because they don't want to be held accountable for their actions. It's not because they don't believe there is a higher intelligence responsible for our existence. Even modern scientists are rethinking their positions, and admitting that scientific evidence supports the notion of an intelligent creator with a purpose in mind.

Atheism as the denial of God or spirituality does not seem like a viable life philosophy these days, although of course it's permissible. It closes a door, so agnosticism, the questioning of such things with an open mind, seems much more viable.

Atheism used to be the philosophy of intellectuals because it sounds smart to say there's no basis for faith. But even quantum physics these days is investigating those paranormal events that are intriguing and finding some validity. One can question a traditional idea of God as an agnostic and still keep some elements of a spirituality that opens humans up to deeper aspects of life.

No, it's the easy route to go.

It's easier for some not to believe, than it is for them to have faith. It's easier for some to be dismissive and turn a blind eye than it is for them to admit that there has to be something bigger than themselves at work here. Sometimes pain produces anger and hate and it's easier to succumb to these emotions than it is to cling to the love of God, knowing that he will eventually pull you through. It's easier for some to give up and be hopeless than it is for them to believe in the power of God and all that he can do. Some people have to see things to believe them, things have to be proven to them. The rest of us constantly try to prove ourselves worthy of God's love. We engage, to some extent, in trying to walk the walk that will get us closer to God. We feel guilty for our sins and try to keep ourselves and others from committing them. It's not easy when your goal is to be a servant of God. It is far easier, for some, to serve themselves. Atheism is not a philosophy, but a denial and unwillingness to see truth.